Nokia Withdraws Patent Litigation Against Warner and Paramount Amid UK Global FRAND Rate Talks

Nokia has recently withdrawn its pending patent infringement actions against Warner Bros. and Paramount at the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and the Munich Regional Court, following an earlier agreement to allow the UK High Court to set a global fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalty rate.

According to the UPC register, Nokia’s proceedings concerning European Patent (EP) 4 250 732, filed against Warner Bros. and Paramount in autumn 2025, were withdrawn before Easter 2026. The case identifiers include UPC_CFI_975/2025, UPC_CFI_739/2026, and UPC_CFI_1390/2025.

Separately, the Munich Regional Court confirmed that Nokia has also withdrawn its actions pending before its 21st Civil Chamber. These claims involved EP 4 099 700 and EP 2 130 150. EP 4 099 700, like EP 4 250 732, protects a technique for improved motion prediction in video coding, while EP 2 130 150 covers a method for improved arrangement of media files based on user profiles.

Despite these withdrawals, the RAND proceedings continue at the UK High Court. The dispute centers on Nokia’s portfolio of standard-essential patents (SEPs) related to H.264 (AVC), H.265 (HEVC), and other video-related technologies. In a February 2026 hearing, Nokia agreed for the UK courts to determine the terms of both interim and final global licenses in its disputes with Warner and Paramount.

This agreement makes Nokia the second licensor, after Huawei, to accept an interim license rate set by the UK court. Earlier in February, the UK High Court awarded an interim license to Huawei in its dispute with TP-Link over WiFi 6 technology.

Initially, during a January 2026 case management hearing aimed at expediting the trial of RAND issues, Nokia agreed to grant a global license covering its full portfolio of SEPs and non-SEPs. However, Nokia insisted that the license price be set through arbitration, arguing that arbitration was the appropriate mechanism for determining a global FRAND rate.

Judge Richard Meade of the UK High Court disagreed, stating that arbitration was not the sole forum for setting a global price. He noted that the UK court could set the rate and expressed confidence that the claimants would agree to this approach.

Judge Meade also criticized Nokia for escalating litigation in multiple jurisdictions, including Brazil, Germany, and the UPC, which increased the risk of injunctions for Warner Bros. and Paramount. He accused Nokia of using the threat of widespread litigation as leverage to compel arbitration, which the claimants otherwise would not have accepted (case ID: HP-2025-000053).

Ultimately, Nokia agreed to allow the UK High Court to set the global FRAND rate and withdrew all litigation outside the UK, including cases in Germany and at the UPC.

In a statement, Nokia emphasized its goal to receive fair compensation for its technologies and maintain a level playing field for companies that have agreed to pay for their use. The company reiterated its position that no court should set a global rate without the consent of both parties, noting that it had not initiated legal proceedings against Warner or Paramount in the UK. Nevertheless, Nokia agreed to meet Warner and Paramount’s demands for the UK court to determine the appropriate royalty for licenses to Nokia’s technology.

Nokia further stated that licensing principles are still evolving in the streaming services market and expressed confidence that the UK court would endorse Nokia’s valuation based on existing agreements. The company reaffirmed its belief that legally binding arbitration in a neutral, internationally recognized forum remains a more effective mechanism for resolving global patent disputes.

The legal teams involved bring extensive experience in litigation over video and audio technologies used in streaming services, a sector that has seen increasing patent disputes in recent years. Some cases, such as Nokia versus Amazon and Nokia versus Hisense, have settled, while others, including InterDigital versus Amazon, InterDigital versus Disney, and Huawei versus Disney, remain ongoing.

In the UPC and Munich proceedings, Nokia was represented by a team from Arnold Ruess, including Cordula Schumacher, Arno Riße, Tim Smentkowski, Jan Wergin, Tuğçe Altun, and Victoria Thüsing, alongside patent attorneys Christoph Walke and Lars Grannemann from Cohausz & Florack. These Düsseldorf-based IP boutiques are regular advisors to Nokia.

For the UK proceedings, Nokia retained Bird & Bird, with barristers Nicholas Saunders of Brick Court Chambers and Tom Jones of 8 New Square.

Paramount and Warner Bros. were jointly represented by Hogan Lovells in the UPC and German courts. The team was led by partners Steffen Steininger and Benjamin Schröer, with patent attorney Andreas Schmid overseeing technical matters. Counsel Katharina Bickel, Teresa Sedelmaier, and associates Leonard Hollander, Christopher Schwarzkopf, Wolfgang Schulz, Maximilian Ferling, Daniel Kaneko, and Fabian Langer, as well as patent attorneys Alexander Lebschy and Cedric Rohr, also participated.

In the UK, Paramount was represented by Kirkland & Ellis, while Warner Bros. instructed Taylor Wessing. Barristers Andrew Lykiardopoulos of 8 New Square and Femi Adekoya of Blackstone appeared for Warner Bros., with Ravi Mehta and Kyra Nezami of 11 South Square representing Paramount.